RigorCheckRigorCheck
    Sign In

    Simple, transparent pricing

    Try free, then pay only when you need a full critique

    🆓

    Free

    $0

    Try RigorCheck with a summary-level critique

    • 1 manuscript critique (one-time)
    • Up to ~5,000 words
    • Strategic summary with reviewer perception
    • Readiness snapshot
    • Primary review risks
    • What's working well
    • Rejection risk grades (letter grades only)
    • Revision priorities
    • Consistency flags
    • Fix checklist
    • Section-by-section feedback
    Full Analysis
    🔬

    Full Critique

    $15per manuscript

    Complete analysis with actionable feedback — no subscription needed

    • Full manuscript critique
    • Up to ~12,000 words
    • Strategic summary with reviewer perception
    • Readiness snapshot
    • Primary review risks
    • What's working well
    • Rejection risk grades (full detail with flags)
    • Revision priorities
    • Consistency flags
    • Submission fix checklist
    • Section-by-section feedback

    What's included in a full critique?

    Strategic Summary

    An executive overview of your manuscript's strengths and vulnerabilities, paired with a "reviewer perception" callout that predicts how reviewers will respond to your paper.

    "The manuscript presents a well-motivated study but faces risks from incomplete reporting…"

    What reviewers will perceive

    "Promising research question, but reviewers will flag the methods gaps."

    Readiness Snapshot

    An at-a-glance readiness score estimating how well your manuscript holds up against common peer review standards, highlighting your paper's strongest areas and the gaps most likely to draw criticism.

    Attention LevelModerate–High

    Reviewer Focus: Major revision likely

    Rejection Risk Grades

    Letter grades across four key areas — study rationale, methods, discussion, and writing quality — showing where reviewers are most likely to raise concerns.

    Study Rationale
    B+
    Methods
    C+
    Discussion
    B-
    Writing
    B

    Primary Review Risks

    Structural and argumentative weaknesses that frequently lead to desk rejections — unclear hypotheses, unsupported claims, and logical gaps between methods and conclusions.

    HighUnreported moderation measures
    MedInconsistent effect size metrics

    Consistency Flags

    Spot contradictions between your abstract and results, mismatched figures, or terminology inconsistencies that undermine credibility — silent issues reviewers notice but authors often miss.

    Abstract"significant reduction"
    Resultsp = 0.08, non-significant

    Section-by-Section Feedback

    Every major section — introduction, methods, results, and discussion — receives targeted, actionable feedback so you know exactly what to revise before submission.

    Abstract
    Methods
    Results

    Submission Fix Checklist

    An actionable to-do list synthesized from all critique feedback — track your progress as you address each issue before submission.

    Report individual difference measures
    Add power analysis details
    Clarify load induction procedure

    Want to see a real example? View a sample critique or read our FAQ to learn more.

    Ready to catch what Reviewer 2 will see?

    Results in minutes. Your manuscript text is not saved after analysis.

    We use cookies for analytics to improve your experience. Read our Privacy Policy for details.